Gun Violence In Modern Society

Throughout history, many political and societal issues on a plethora of topics which societies have faced, although dealt with differently under varying circumstances, are relatively constant. One such topic, that of violence in modern society, is of great importance in the public eye, and governments try to respond to societal violence, whichever way is deemed judicious and appropriate, considering the ways which the public views such matters. Specifically speaking to issues of violence in modern society, gun control is a topic that is enveloped in political controversy. Governments behave differently to combat gun violence, according to their fundamental ideals and the opinions and paradigms of those who society is comprised. The nature or presence of any legislative action is usually

questioned, especially when such a controversial topic is being discussed. However, such legislation is sometimes necessary to abate acts of violence.
Recently, there was a shooting at a community college in Oregon, one of the many school shootings that have occurred in the United States throughout the last few years. CNN News Network reports that President Obama addressed this event, stating that “[the country’s] thoughts and prayers are not enough” and that “it does nothing to prevent [future gun violence] in America” (McKirdy). Obviously some action is required, or is at least prudent, in dealing with gun control so that acts of violence such as this can be avoided or drastically reduced in the future. Unfortunately, events like this occur somewhat frequently in many other countries as well. Albeit different countries, which are run under different governmental bodies, naturally deal with politically controversial issues different, tailoring solutions to what is considered judicious and popular among the people which they govern.
Perhaps, however, a solution can arise for gun violence in the U.S. by observing the ways which other countries have dealt with similar situations. The first example of a country that has implemented gun laws as a result of terrible acts of gun violence is Australia. In 1996, newly elected Prime Minister John Howard enacted gun control reform in response to a massacre caused by a gunman which resulted in thirty-five deaths (McKirdy). This reform, banning the use of high-caliber rifles and shotguns, also led to a large-scale “buy-back” of guns in Australia shortly following the ban (McKirdy). Thus, one possible response, which the Australian government chose to pursue, is gun reform and a nation-wide gun ban on certain weapons. However, in contrast to Australia, where there is no Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing people the right to bear arms and where gun use is relatively low, according to CNN, the U.S. ensures such constitutional protection and gun use is much higher. Even though these factors may be cause for concern on the American front, Australia nonetheless has had overwhelming success with these new policies, reducing gunshot death risk by fifty percent and reducing suicide rates by eighty percent (McKirdy). Such statistics cannot be overlooked when deciding a course of action to take involving the prevention of gun violence.
Another country that has passed gun laws, more so than those passed in Australia, is the United Kingdom. As a result of a massacre in 1987, new legislation in the form of the Firearms Amendment was passed, requiring gun licensing, “making registration mandatory for owing shotguns and banning semiautomatic and pump-action weapons” (McKirdy). These preventative measures taken are even more extreme than those taken by the Australian government, yet they have proven more unreliable in their efficacy. There has been a violent tragedy since the ban and licensing and registration requirement of certain weapons. Furthermore, this tragedy was caused by a licensed gunman, and the licensing process is extensive and thorough (McKirdy). Therefore, despite stringent gun laws, gun violence is still present in the United Kingdom, causing some to “question the effectiveness of [the] laws [set in place]” (McKirdy). The course of action that the United Kingdom chose to take may prove too extreme for the U.S. government.
The Finnish government, when faced with similar tragedies involving gun-related deaths, acted in a unique, different approach. As a result of two school shootings caused by teenagers armed with a handguns and other firearms, “new guidelines on the use of [handheld] firearms” was favorable (McKirdy). These guidelines restricted gun use by raising the minimum age requirement for purchasing short-barrel weapon licenses from eighteen to twenty, and the time which gun permits were valid was shortened (McKirdy). However, the effectiveness of such laws was still questioned. It was later proven though that the number of gun permits issued in Finland had declined by thirty percent following the gun reform (McKirdy). The Finnish government’s response to gun violence proved effective, some parts of which could be implemented in a form of gun control in the U.S.
Upon observing how other countries have responded to similar situations in fairly similar ways, with varying amounts of success, the U.S.

government should have a clear indication as to the positive and negative externalities of legislative action. Mostly, gun reform has led to success in abating gun violence, by reducing overall death rates. Perhaps if the U.S. government followed in the footsteps of other countries, gun violence could be greatly reduced. However, legislative action also requires political consideration, which makes laws much harder to enact. Since the government tries to appeal to the majority of the nation while still trying to do what is best for the nation, controversy and conflict arise. However, it is apparent that action needs to take place, the degree to which this occurs can be up for debate. Along with proof of benefit from other countries, the U.S. should create legislation that will appeal to both sides of the political battleground: a balance between preserving the right to bear arms and protecting future generations from unnecessary gun violence. For the only way to make progress is via change, and a lack there of it will guarantee

failure.